SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

274 and 277/Bang/2017 Page 11 of 18 (iii) That the finding of the Tribunal, that the assessee was not entitled to exemption as a trust under Section 12 because some of the funds were being utilised for purposes other than charitable

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , HUBBALLI vs. LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST, HUBBALLI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 11(6) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2014 is prospective w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and therefore the said amended provision is not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. Following the earlier decisions of this Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” 4.3.2 Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

M/S ANANDA SOCIAL & EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri P.K.Gadale

Section 11 of the Act.” 28. In the case before Hon'ble Madras High Court the question, inter alia, was collection of Capitation Fees from students who were admitted in the management quota by the assessee running educational institutions. The Hon'ble Madras High Court noticed that the assessing officer has not conducted any enquiry with students or parents

ABHERAJ BALDOTA FOUNDATION ,HOSPET vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Trust (1990) 52 Taxmann330,wherein the deduction of 25% u/s 11(1)(a) was allowed against the income assessed u/s 11(3)(b) of the Act for failure of the assessee to invest or deposit the accumulated amount in accordance with sec. 11(5) of the Act. The ld AR submitted that, by applying the analogy of Hon’ble Calcutta

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

charitable, but commercial. Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

charitable, but commercial. Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

charitable, but commercial. Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

charitable, but commercial. Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

charitable, but commercial. Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

charitable, but commercial. Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

charitable, but commercial. Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MANGALORE vs. M/S SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2010-11

sections of agriculturists, the liability for the same arises in the year of raising of bills by PACs which happens in the subsequent years counting the disbursement upto the year end. Hence, he held that it was the expenditure relatable to previous year and accordingly directed the AO to allow the same. 18. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD.,, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2010-11

sections of agriculturists, the liability for the same arises in the year of raising of bills by PACs which happens in the subsequent years counting the disbursement upto the year end. Hence, he held that it was the expenditure relatable to previous year and accordingly directed the AO to allow the same. 18. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals

B M MANJUNATHA GUPTA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

274 r.w.s. 271 (1)(c) is not in accordance with law and suffers from various irregularities, since the Notice of penalty is not clear under which limb of penalty the penalty proceeding shave been initiated whether for concealment of income Or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and consequently the learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] ought to have cancelled

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

Charitable Trust registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act). The Assessee runs educational institution and has been on records of the Department for more than 2 decades. 2.1 The case of assessee was taken on the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and a notice was under section

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

Charitable Trust registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act). The Assessee runs educational institution and has been on records of the Department for more than 2 decades. 2.1 The case of assessee was taken on the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and a notice was under section

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

Charitable Trust registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act). The Assessee runs educational institution and has been on records of the Department for more than 2 decades. 2.1 The case of assessee was taken on the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and a notice was under section

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

Charitable Trust registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act). The Assessee runs educational institution and has been on records of the Department for more than 2 decades. 2.1 The case of assessee was taken on the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and a notice was under section

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

274 ITR 465. The ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the facts and 4 ITA No.1195(Bang)/2015 circumstances of the quoted cases are different for the instant case. In all the above three cases the direct nexus between the expenditure and taxable income are clearly proved. But here there is no direct nexus exist or proved